Home | About | Donate

'Cynical' Obamacare Challenge Exposes Persistent Flaw of For-Profit System


#1

'Cynical' Obamacare Challenge Exposes Persistent Flaw of For-Profit System

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on Wednesday in King v. Burwell, the case that could decide the future of the Affordable Care Act and the healthcare status of an estimated 9.6 million people who have purchased insurance through HealthCare.gov.


#2

This is a joke of a case, but leave it up to Roberts and his cronies to accept it as worthy of a hearing.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I has seen the original text in the legislation/law to state "through an exchange established by the State." - emphasis on the capital "S" in state. If is is capital "S," then the State is a generic term referring to the government, federal or state and not each individual state. Case closed.

If this is not the case, then as the article points out, this is still about cynicism, but don't put it past "Corporate" Roberts to end the subsidies.for the Federally-run state healthcare plans.

If I were the health insurance companies, I'd be pissed, because they will lose a boatload of money if Roberts et al. take the cynical action everyone is afraid of.


#3

This is a case of competing business interests. On the one side are the healthcare insurers who are doing quite well under the law and do not want instability or a death spiral induced by the withdrawal of subsidies and on the other the Cato Institute-Koch brothers side of corporate America that wants to plunge us into facsism. Close call but I think that once again the Healthcare industry will win. This case will not be decided by a deliberation of what is good for the American people. This Court is corrupt beyond redemption and the power of judicial review should be taken from it.
.


#4

The privatization model - seems to be taken from the playbook of what is now the 'death spiral' of insane levels of ponzi derivatives by traders/traitors as 'middleman' to assure a daddyload of fees - no matter what happens.
Its the TTIP/TTP model, NSA model, the (s)electoral model, the energy model, the military occupation model, all with the perverse projection of perspective that life is a narcissistic 'cabal'. Oh, guess I shouldn't forget how useful all of this is for perpetual recreating of 'wars' on terror.
This perversion of society cum cabal can't even see the 1% tax on trades of the former for what it represents because they know it its swirling process down the tubes would be revealed for what it is.
Today 'the future' seems telescoped into the tube of 'budget' financialization characterized by the DoD model of the 'black budget' and inflating hammer costs to assure that next year's budget will see an increase.
Shared by all of these is that they produce nothing, hence a doubled-down perversion of the 'intangible assets' of natural well being, healthy environments, and all the actually productive 'outcomes' that are externalized (denied) by the metrics of GDP. Well, the military does actually produce stuff - that short circuits resources to immediate destruction - do not pass go, get out of jail free card and ... whooppee!


#5

A single payer system is the most cost effective and rational for everyone.

Medicare for all.


#6

If you remember, folks were rather surprised when Roberts voted to "save" the ACA by making the argument that the gov't has a right to "tax" and the penalties for noncompliance were taxes ....

I think he did it for the benefit of insurers - the biggest beneficiaries of this "plan" and so I think, for the same reason, he will vote against this challenge as well ....


#7

"A single payer system is the most cost effective and rational for everyone. " You are so right and yet, somehow, I don't think this outcome is likely.


#8

Good point, of course that was the motivation of Roberts but I see an irony or unintended consequence here. If we moved to Single-payer and financed it through a system of taxation Roberts would have to concede that this would be legal.


#9

ObamaCare was a poor alternative to single payer for all. It was a scheme intended to enrich capitalist interests. This issue would not exist if the government represented the "People" instead of the capitalist, corporate state. This issue should not even be considered.

Single payer/medicare for all, is the only humane structure for delivering health care to the citizens of this dying republic.


#10

Don't you find it ironic that in your support of ACA you end up supporting direct corporate profits subsidized by taxpayers?


#11

One thing is for certain. The individual mandate will never be eliminated through Supreme Court ruling or act of Congress.


#12

I don't think a Medicare for All plan would face such a court challenge, as it would simply be an extension of a program that has stood the test of time -


#13

Well, since the Koch suckers, er, brothers, and all their corporate friends have bought or bribed the government (Federal and State), the military, the "Supreme" Court, law enforcement and anybody else who will take orders for a buck, just look at the possible profit for them and you will see the result of this, or any other court of "Law."
* If We the People were to pool our resources, it wouldn't add up to 0.001% of what the 0.001% have for pocket change. But, they want it all and they'll stop at nothing to get it, and they think nothing of dropping a few million or a billion into the pot to get their way.
;-})


#15

The term "State" is clearly defined in the text of the bill as referring to the individual States and not the federal government.


#16

He'd have to find Medicare unconstitutional - on what basis? Even the right wingers haven't brought such a challenge before this court, and they have had plenty of time to do so ...


#17

"If a majority of supposedly objective justices decide to ignore the facts and buy their argument, they will have engaged in a breathtaking act of political activism."
—Steven Brill. After reading your conclusions in Bitter Pill article in Time Magazine I think the same can be said about you. When you dismiss Single-Payer out of hand with all the evidence there is that it will be much cheaper and better outcomes for ALL you betray a neoliberal, market loving agenda.

Just came across this: www.truth-out.org/news/item/29435-behind-supreme-the-court-s-obamacare-case-a-secretive-society-s-hidden-hand


#18

Yeah, I get your point. I guess I am thinking more about the millions of people who would likely lose healthcare insurance and the thousands who will very likely die as a result, if the court strikes down the federal exchange subsidies.

Yes, the ACA has locked in a bunch of profits for heath insurance corporations, The ACA is not the best solution by any means. But my immediate thoughts are with people.

I also save a small portion of my thinking in the form of disgust for the plaintiffs in this case - the immensely selfish.


#19

I appreciate your perspective, thanks.


#20

I thought the exact opposite. If they were referring to multiple individual States that they would have made the word plural.

Also this whole thing is a little Orwellian seeing so many of the law makers that were involved in writing the law are still alive and may even still be in office, let alone the president himself. Why not just call the people and ask what they meant?


#21

You're right. It is the Heritage Foundation that has been pushing to get Federal money to the private Insurance companies. Called "The Affordable Care Act", it's just all circus now with "Obama Care" used to feed the right's hate for the man kept front and center. They don't understand that Socialized medicine has several working models and for the teabag sheeple it would provide them with better care without the personal financial drain.